If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Love watching Shockey's show, very well done but every episode features stuff I'll never do - being for the most part I'm a regular DIY mostly public land hunter. Any guidance or influence the Shockey types have with our politicians is that that doesn't really cater to us broke dick average guys. Odd that he thinks we all need to just grab each others asses because we go hunting. Hunters potentially losing places to hunt on public land in the lower 48 has no impact to Jim Shockey's hunting plans.

I would like to hear what Shockey sees as the end-game if federal land is sold off. I cannot imagine any other result than fewer hunters and greatly diminished wildlife (A la Europe). If he can articulate a different perspective and present some reasonable arguments, we can start there. Until then I have to strongly disagree with his endorsements of the land-transfer politicians.

"We all need to join together and not speak ill of other hunters!" Spoken by everyone who knows that they're advocating for crap, but still want your support regardless of how it would actually impact your life.

It's the standard SFW/BGF line on not wanting opposition to your idea, while stil ltrying to make out like you care about average hunters or anglers. I'm all for smash-mouth policy debates. If your idea doesn't stand up to scrutiny by like-mined people, then maybe you shouldn't be advocating for who/or what you are.

It's an effective talking point. It changes the subject and puts to negatives on people who are voicing honest concerns. It's political speak in it's highest form.

If people don't know they're being used as a tool to advance a bad agenda, are they still tools?

This has been my issue in getting behind celebrities and other spokesman in the hunting industry. Advocating uniting behind figureheads instead of ideas forces you to espouse everything they do or caveat your way on a myriad of issues. This is why I personal identify as conservative (which is itself now becoming loaded) instead of Republican. In that way I back an idea instead of a person.

Back this guy (despite his anti stance) should instead be: WE back public lands and here is the list of others who do. If Shockey wants to back public lands and his politico as well, then lets just says that and applaud that.

However, we do not live in a world where you can simply vote ideas on a ballot, you have to vote the person. But, we can raise the alarm loudly on issues.

"There are no words that can tell the hidden spirit of the wilderness, that can reveal its mystery, its melancholy, and its charm." ~TR

...I realize my singular efforts may not have a huge impact but at least it is action. His sponsors like Yeti and Leupold(sorry Randy) have already received emails from me expressing my displeasure. Don't get me wrong, I think those are great companies with great products but they will not receive one red cent from me while he is either on the payroll or until he changes his tune. I love the free market because it allows me to vote with each and every purchase I make(or don't make.)

Maybe I am extreme but its just that important to me.

I admire your undivided devotion though if you follow all the organizations and personalities/TV shows Leupold sponsors / partners with, well they are an extraordinary company! However, within the many, there are aspects within some I disagree.

And for public lands public figure, the ONLY TV outdoor personality promoted on their website as a fixture... Not on occasion though a set fixture is, Randy Newberg. So imagine all they do in support of your interests.https://www.leupold.com/leupold-core...-randy-newberg

To me, when my $ allows me to dig into one company or another, I look at who most promotes my interests. Made in America, Public Lands promotion among other key interests. If there is one they sponsor/partner that I do not like, I'll let my voice be heard as I did today over our Canadian Shockey, that damn Russki!!! Ehh, Canuck!!! - influencing the naive public regarding our politicians as a foreigner!! <Haha! Joke> I don't intend to hinder the support they provide for the vast others that my purchase power assists.
-Fwiw

whats the gain for guys like shockey being best friends with these politicians when they have little to no impact on them? Correct me if I am wrong but he runs most of his guided hunts out of Canada right? I am sure when he hunts down here with the rest of us it isn't public land... so whats the gain for him? Slipping him a check for a social media post trying to get like minded individuals to vote for said politician? I guess I just don't see the point of hunting celebs promoting politicians.

I admire your undivided devotion though if you follow all the organizations and personalities/TV shows Leupold sponsors / partners with, well they are an extraordinary company! However, within the many, there are aspects within some I disagree.

-Fwiw

Sytes,
Thank for the reply and grounding the conversation. You have some excellent points! It brings it back to my original post. I agree with you that Leupold does some great things. They make great products. They sponsor Randy! They are a great company. I will not argue that at all. That's what makes this hard and hence the post with questions.

The question I have is where is the line? Its something I think about all the time. Its not a black and white issue. Is the public land transfer issue so important to us that we will stop using a brand, even though we consider that company to be very ethical otherwise? I know most of us consider that transfer of public lands as the ultimate sin in the hunting and fishing world but what are we willing to sacrifice to bring justice? My question is not rhetorical, its genuine.

I have to throw the caveat on here that I am not picking on Leupold. They are merely a place holder in this conversation. It could be any company or person that is in this position and I really doubt Leupold directed Jim in any way. The sponsors are one of the the conduits to where Sportsman can hold these figures accountable.
Thanks!

Last edited by dying4publicland; 02-12-2018 at 02:43 PM.
Reason: spelling

whats the gain for guys like shockey being best friends with these politicians when they have little to no impact on them? Correct me if I am wrong but he runs most of his guided hunts out of Canada right? I am sure when he hunts down here with the rest of us it isn't public land... so whats the gain for him? Slipping him a check for a social media post trying to get like minded individuals to vote for said politician? I guess I just don't see the point of hunting celebs promoting politicians.

Get a PLT politician elected, transfer public lands, open US based (Utah in this case) outfitting/guide business using an already well known name (J Shockey) on newly acquired private lands, rake in the money.

The last word of the above run-on sentence is the answer to your question.

"We all need to join together and not speak ill of other hunters!" Spoken by everyone who knows that they're advocating for crap, but still want your support regardless of how it would actually impact your life.

It's the standard SFW/BGF line on not wanting opposition to your idea, while stil ltrying to make out like you care about average hunters or anglers. I'm all for smash-mouth policy debates. If your idea doesn't stand up to scrutiny by like-mined people, then maybe you shouldn't be advocating for who/or what you are.

Very good point Ben. The PLT in Utah have died down greatly in the last year. The legislature is in session right now and I don't see focus on PLT. The monument correction (yes) and dialogue with Trump-Zinke have ratcheted down the discussion.

Now is time for people to participate in discussion with elected officials.

Very good point Ben. The PLT in Utah have died down greatly in the last year. The legislature is in session right now and I don't see focus on PLT. The monument correction (yes) and dialogue with Trump-Zinke have ratcheted down the discussion.

Now is time for people to participate in discussion with elected officials.

It's a changing debate. We are idiots if we don't look and see that, and adapt. It's why I've been preaching about the need to actually talk policy and look at areas where there can be agreement for a few years now. PLT is the shiny thing on the right, held out to be the goal, when in reality - politicians and think tanks and the groups that support them get the exact same kind of management regardless of who owns the land - especially with this administration.

Lots of folks have been trying to have that conversation for decades, only to be shot down by extremists on both sides. On the left, it's the serial litigants. On the right - it's politicians with extreme agendas, buoyed by the likes of Mr. Shockey's ignorant endorsement.

Get a PLT politician elected, transfer public lands, open US based (Utah in this case) outfitting/guide business using an already well known name (J Shockey) on newly acquired private lands, rake in the money.

The last word of the above run-on sentence is the answer to your question.

With the CWMU program in UT, there'd be no need for the first two steps. Just write a big enough check to the right landowner.

Outside of the various internet hunting forums it is amazing how few people who are sportsman and hunters have no clue or have never even heard about the remote possibility of the transfer of public land lands. When I bring up the topic at a hunting club or when around friends they think I lost my mind or look at me like I have been drinking the coolaide or I have become some conspiracy theorist.

Not a Shockey fan but there is one point here that is being overlooked. Being Canadian, he just lost the right to Grizzly hunt on any land in BC due to a simple popular vote. I might would equate that to the 100k+ people importing into CO every year now that DONT hunt being able to do something similar in the future with any animal on a ballot. There is great value in our public lands but without hunting would it mean as much to most as it does now? Don't say for a minute it can't happen here, I'm sure the 10-15% of BC residents that bear hunt thought it couldn't happen there.

It's disappointing to see some of these things but most people don't try to educate themselves on a matter until it's too late. I'm not sure anyone is going to win him over or influence his sponsors by attaching F bombs, insults, or threats with a comment on public lands, political, or celebrity photos.

Not a Shockey fan but there is one point here that is being overlooked. Being Canadian, he just lost the right to Grizzly hunt on any land in BC due to a simple popular vote. I might would equate that to the 100k+ people importing into CO every year now that DONT hunt being able to do something similar in the future with any animal on a ballot. There is great value in our public lands but without hunting would it mean as much to most as it does now? Don't say for a minute it can't happen here, I'm sure the 10-15% of BC residents that bear hunt thought it couldn't happen there.

It's disappointing to see some of these things but most people don't try to educate themselves on a matter until it's too late. I'm not sure anyone is going to win him over or influence his sponsors by attaching F bombs, insults, or threats with a comment on public lands, political, or celebrity photos.

The ban wasn't by popular vote. It was made by the party in power who used the excuse that most citizens don't want them hunted when it's actually a bunch of antis just like ones down here in the states that were behind it.

Not a Shockey fan but there is one point here that is being overlooked. Being Canadian, he just lost the right to Grizzly hunt on any land in BC due to a simple popular vote. I might would equate that to the 100k+ people importing into CO every year now that DONT hunt being able to do something similar in the future with any animal on a ballot. There is great value in our public lands but without hunting would it mean as much to most as it does now? Don't say for a minute it can't happen here, I'm sure the 10-15% of BC residents that bear hunt thought it couldn't happen there.

It's disappointing to see some of these things but most people don't try to educate themselves on a matter until it's too late. I'm not sure anyone is going to win him over or influence his sponsors by attaching F bombs, insults, or threats with a comment on public lands, political, or celebrity photos.

Ballot initiatives have already curtailed hunting and trapping opportunities in WA, OR, CA, and other states so I agree that it is still a serious threat. Fin did a great job smashing the trapping ban in MT but CO may be tougher.

The ban wasn't by popular vote. It was made by the party in power who used the excuse that most citizens don't want them hunted when it's actually a bunch of antis just like ones down here in the states that were behind it.

Just brought this up in another thread. But bans like that in Colorado are going to be facing a tough time passing after Amendment 71 passed in 2016 - making it significantly harder to pass ballot initiatives and change the constitution of the state. I couldn't be happier that Amendmen 71 passed, gonna save a lot of BS headaches in the future for outdoorsmen and many other groups.

But bans like that in Colorado are going to be facing a tough time passing after Amendment 71 passed in 2016 - making it significantly harder to pass ballot initiatives and change the constitution of the state. I couldn't be happier that Amendmen 71 passed, gonna save a lot of BS headaches in the future for outdoorsmen and many other groups.